View report page

37
Atmospheric Pollution.
Clean Air Act, 1956.
Smoke Control Areas.
Following confirmation by the Minister of Housing and Local
Government in 1961, the Council's No. 2 Smoke Control Order, covering
237 acres and 2,000 dwellings, became operative on the 1st May,
1962.
The Battersea No. 3 Smoke Control Order was declared by the
Council in June, 1962, and confirmed by the Minister in October, the
only modification being the postponement of the operative date from
the 1st May to 1st July, 1963. The No. 3 Area, covering 291 acres
and 3,638 dwellings, extends the No. 1 and No. 2 Areas.
That part of the Borough enclosed by the Borough boundary on
the south, east and west, and Battersea Rise and Clapham Common
North Side on the north is now covered by Smoke Control Orders. The
No. 4 Order will extend this area northwards to Lavender Hill, and
St. John's Hill as far as the railway lines. The survey of the No. 4
Area is in hand, and it is hoped to report on this area in 1963.
The map on the next page indicates the extent of the Smoke Control
Areas in the Borough.
During the year 3,797 visits were made; 267 applications for approval
of proposed works of adaptation and estimated costs, relating to 611
conversions of fireplaces, were received ; grants approved amounted to
£4,307 18s. 0d.
Smoke, etc., Nuisances and Observations.
During the year, 13 complaints were made alleging nuisances from
smoke, dust, grit, etc., emitted from the premises in various parts of the
Borough. All these complaints received careful and sometimes
prolonged investigation.
In addition to dealing with specific complaints, observations are
kept upon the chimneys of any industrial plant which merits observations, and the appropriate action taken. A total number of 268
observations were made. Four notices were served.
A summons was issued under the provisions of the Clean Air Act,
1956, against a demolition contractor, whose workmen continually
ignited large bonfires on cleared sites, causing a serious nuisance to
people in the surrounding neighbourhood. The Court, however, was
not satisfied that a nuisance had been caused, and the Summons was
dismissed.
The effluvia nuisance from one particular firm, to which reference
was made in last year's Report, occurred fairly repeatedly, and was the
subject of a number of reports to the Committee. This culminated in
the attendance before the Committee, at their request, of officers of the
firm, who explained to the Committee the complete reorganisation of
the firm's manufacturing processes in an attempt to eliminate the
nuisance. Although the position has improved considerably, complaints
are still being received and the matter is being kept under continuous
observation.